using gas with 10% ethonal means 10% less millage!!
Green Turtle
This is what I call stupid.
If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even less
gas mileage!
In other words you completely 100% wasting the product, and you gain
absolutely nothing!
And, if you remove the 10% ethanol from the gasoline, you get 10% percent
more gas mileage (actually some test shown as much as 27% more).
So why would I waste all this money and time and effort to produce ethanol,
put 10% of it into gasoline, and then suffer a 10% drop in gasoline mileage?
What did I gain?
In a sense that means we're completely wasting the product...
Super Turtle.
Ouroboros_Rex
> This is what I call stupid.
>
> If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even
> less gas mileage!
Cite please.
>
> In other words you completely 100% wasting the product, and you gain
> absolutely nothing!
Cite please.
>
>
> And, if you remove the 10% ethanol from the gasoline, you get 10%
> percent more gas mileage (actually some test shown as much as 27%
> more).
Cite please.
>
> So why would I waste all this money and time and effort to produce
> ethanol, put 10% of it into gasoline, and then suffer a 10% drop in
> gasoline mileage? What did I gain?
>
> In a sense that means we're completely wasting the product...
>
> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
Funny, this article makes none of your claims. Where's your source?
Tom Gardner
"Green Turtle" <Super...@greenpiece.com> wrote in message
news:kRT5k.13104$Jx.5325@pd7urf1no...
I do believe it was originally added to reduce pollution (real pollution,
not CO2). Although, with the reduced mileage I wouldn't be surprised if
it's a wash. The subsidies for the ethanol are lucrative.
Green Turtle
news:g3927u$97l$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>> In a sense that means we're completely wasting the product...
>>
>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
>
> Funny, this article makes none of your claims. Where's your source?
Once again you showed your amazing lack of comprehension, and an amazing
lack of ability to understand and read anything beyond having me to explain
everything for you. I guess I have to treat you like a two year old, and
explain this. (however, I find it really amazing you can grasp simple
straight points made in an article).
So, yes it does support what I am saying:
<quote>
The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85
compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg
(rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we’ve gotten
from any vehicle in recent years.
</quote>
What part of the above did you not understand that adding the ethanol
dropped the gas mileage by an **significant** amount?
What that article is telling you that ethanol has a much lower engery value
then gas...
Super Turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:g3927u$97l$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>>> In a sense that means we're completely wasting the product...
>>>
>>> http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
>>
>> Funny, this article makes none of your claims. Where's your source?
>
> Once again you showed your amazing lack of comprehension, and an
> amazing lack of ability to understand and read anything beyond having
> me to explain everything for you.
Nice try, but you are caught by your own words, liar.
I guess I have to treat you like a
> two year old, and explain this. (however, I find it really amazing
> you can grasp simple straight points made in an article).
None of your points were made in the article, liar.
>
> So, yes it does support what I am saying:
It does not, liar.
>
> <quote>
> The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85
But you said the 27% was with E-10, liar.
> compared with gasoline, from an already low 14 mpg overall to 10 mpg
> (rounded to the nearest mpg). This is the lowest fuel mileage we've
> gotten from any vehicle in recent years.
> </quote>
>
> What part of the above did you not understand that adding the ethanol
> dropped the gas mileage by an **significant** amount?
Not what you claimed, liar.
>
> What that article is telling you that ethanol has a much lower engery
> value then gas...
But what you told us was...
"If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even less
gas mileage!
In other words you completely 100% wasting the product, and you gain
absolutely nothing!
And, if you remove the 10% ethanol from the gasoline, you get 10% percent
more gas mileage (actually some test shown as much as 27% more)."
In other words, once again you are a damned liar.
And, of course, "once again you showed your amazing lack of comprehension,
and an amazing lack of ability to understand and read anything beyond having
me to explain everything for you." lol
Green Turtle
>> <quote>
>> The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85
>
> But you said the 27% was with E-10, liar.
>
No, I did not claim or state that the 27% drop was with e-10.
It was clearly e85 being talked about.
As for e-10. Some consumers are stating that they are getting 10% less.
Now, accoring to figures, e-10 *should* only result in about a 4% drop, but
some consumers are experiance a LARGER drop then 4%.
If you telling me that the quoted aritcle does not support my claim of 10%
drop, then yes, I agree with you. That article was simply posted to point
out the drop in milage, not prove the 10% drop for a e-10.
However, consumers are seeing other wise:
<quote>
Bong said his truck gets 13.9 miles per gallon with Harris' gas but just 10
mpg with E10. That's a wallet-pounding difference of 28 percent.
</quote>
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021937/posts
Super Turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
> "Ouroboros_Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:g39441$9ni$1...@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
>
>
>>> <quote>
>>> The fuel economy of the Tahoe dropped 27 percent when running on E85
>>
>> But you said the 27% was with E-10, liar.
>>
>
> No, I did not claim or state that the 27% drop was with e-10.
I see you have snipped it again (2nd time, lol), so here it is.
"And, if you remove the 10% ethanol from the gasoline, you get 10% percent
more gas mileage (actually some test shown as much as 27% more)."
>
> It was clearly e85 being talked about.
Where do you see E85 or 85% ethanol mentioned anywhere in your original
post, liar?
>
> As for e-10. Some consumers are stating that they are getting 10%
> less.
Still no cite? lol
>
> Now, accoring to figures, e-10 *should* only result in about a 4%
> drop, but some consumers are experiance a LARGER drop then 4%.
And still no cite. lol
>
> If you telling me that the quoted aritcle does not support my claim
> of 10% drop, then yes, I agree with you. That article was simply
> posted to point out the drop in milage, not prove the 10% drop for a
> e-10.
> However, consumers are seeing other wise:
>
> <quote>
> Bong said his truck gets 13.9 miles per gallon with Harris' gas but
> just 10 mpg with E10. That's a wallet-pounding difference of 28
> percent.
> </quote>
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2021937/posts
ROFLMAO
You are a liar, thrice compounded now - and your freeper buddy "Bong"
needs a serious tuneup. In more ways than one.
Green Turtle
>
> You are a liar, thrice compounded now - and your freeper buddy "Bong"
> needs a serious tuneup. In more ways than one.
sorry, so sad, too bad, but I *did* have that post ready as a response....I
just needed to be sure you on your toes....
There are consumers getting 10% less when using e-10, and in that quote, we
see a drop of 28%, which is amazingly, the SAME number quoted in the e085
article!
Either way you slice this, I could be a jerk and stick to the claim of a 28%
drop for e-10 (so, I can easily show claims for both e-85, ****and**** e-10
here!).
I just have more honestly then you in this regards...
Super Turtle
Ouroboros_Rex
When you find a real cite of anyone anywhere with a verified 10% or more
drop in mileage from 10% ethanol, instead of one guy on a right wing lie
website, get back in touch. lol
James
The fat slob lies again.
Whata Fool
>This is what I call stupid.
>
>If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even less
>gas mileage!
Wrong, it improves mileage, it provides the equivalent of octane
even more than 10 percent, and it helps a more complete burn.
>In other words you completely 100% wasting the product, and you gain
>absolutely nothing!
Look, the only reason corn has been used is because there was millions
of tons surplus every year, the economics will determine which sugar or
starch will be used.
Ethanol may have actually made farming a viable enterprise again,
without the government paying to leave the ground idle.
>And, if you remove the 10% ethanol from the gasoline, you get 10% percent
>more gas mileage (actually some test shown as much as 27% more).
Nonsense, you need to post a link which actually talks about E10.
>So why would I waste all this money and time and effort to produce ethanol,
>put 10% of it into gasoline, and then suffer a 10% drop in gasoline mileage?
>What did I gain?
>
>In a sense that means we're completely wasting the product...
>
>http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/cars/new-cars/news/2006/ethanol-10-06/overview/1006_ethanol_ov1_1.htm
>
>Super Turtle.
Do you need a biased article to know that ethanol with an oxygen
atom in the molecule is already partly burned?
It is great to have an industry that can use a big range of crops
when they are in surplus to make badly needed motor fuel and provide the
farmers who had been going broke because of low prices due to
over-production.
Don't knock a good thing, if people would have been eating that
corn, and there would have not been huge surpluses, it would never
been used for fuel grade ethanol.
And people do not eat all that much field corn to begin with,
it was fed to cattle and used as a source of starch and sugar, and
any commercial use actually makes more available as cattle food at
a lower price because the residue doesn't cost as much as the corn,
and it can have other nutrients added to make a better animal feed.
Please don't let the reactionary articles distort the picture.
Whata Fool
>I do believe it was originally added to reduce pollution (real pollution,
>not CO2). Although, with the reduced mileage I wouldn't be surprised if
>it's a wash. The subsidies for the ethanol are lucrative.
E10 does not reduce mileage, he was reading an article about E85,
and using those numbers discussing E10.
Whata Fool
>What part of the above did you not understand that adding the ethanol
>dropped the gas mileage by an **significant** amount?
>
>What that article is telling you that ethanol has a much lower engery value
>then gas...
>
>Super Turtle
We knew that, apparently the guy that wrote the article didn't,
but you applied those numbers to E10, and E10 is a better fuel all
around than the present unleaded gasoline without it.
Whata Fool
So now the gossip switches to "he said-she said". That article
is about people driving out of a major population county or city where
"re-formulated" gasoline is mandated.
That gasoline may have ethanol in it, but that is not the only
difference, maybe you can find an article that uses science as a source
instead of opinionated gossip.
It is sad when confused gossip starts being perpetuated, the other
additives used to raise the octane rating of unleaded gas are much worse
than ethanol, and to do a proper test, all conditions need to be identical,
too bad you fell into a rumor mill.
Earl Evleth
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote:
> Do you need a biased article to know that ethanol with an oxygen
> atom in the molecule is already partly burned?
it is still a high energy fuel compared to a carbohydrate. But
its energy content is much lower than with a pure hydrocarbon.
One web site says that
76,000 = BTU of energy in a gallon of ethanol
116,090 = BTU of energy in a gallon of gasoline
So 10% ethanol if there is no volume change on mixing,
should have 112,000 Btu, which would represent
a 4-5% reduction in energy content and the miliage
should only drop by 5% not 10%
One has to note that a methanol fuel cell has been developed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct-methanol_fuel_cell
whose overall efficiency could be in the order of 70%
(direct burning will not yield higher than 25%). I know
of no ethanol based fuel cell, yet. But this is the way to
go.
Rich
The energy content of ethanol is less than the energy content of gasoline.
Long ago I drove through the northeast and tried ethanol. This was on my
old carborated (1984?) Honda Civic and my gas mileage (figured every fillup)
was indeed less than usual, although I don't recall by how much.
In the same vein, in CA they claimed that MTBE reduced mileage only by 2%,
although somehow everyone in the real world was seeing a 20% reduction. This
is for the ones who's fuel systems were not destroyed of course. A fate we
may well see again if CA switches from MTBE to ethanol.
Cheers,
Rich
Rich
Considering the present costs of fuel cells (and their use of
precious metals) I doubt that they will ever be cost-effective
compared to gasoline, or even ethanol (as ICE fuel of course).
Cheers,
Rich
Green Turtle
news:v9kh54pjsfk4ln75p...@4ax.com...
>>If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even less
>>gas mileage!
>
> Wrong, it improves mileage, it provides the equivalent of octane
> even more than 10 percent, and it helps a more complete burn.
>
No, that is not what *all* test's show at all right now. Even with e-10,
most will show about a 3%-4% drop in mileage. It has less energy then
gasoline, so adding this stuff to gas will **generally** reduce output and
reduce mileage. And, as I pointed out, many are finding A WORSE mileage then
a 4% drop.
it is possible that cars could be better (or specific) tuned to take
advantage of e-10, but that is not the case right now. And, that better
turning could also be applied to using gas anyway.
>
> Look, the only reason corn has been used is because there was millions
> of tons surplus every year, the economics will determine which sugar or
> starch will be used.
There not a surplus now, and the flooding in Iowa makes this situation even
worse.
>
> Ethanol may have actually made farming a viable enterprise again,
> without the government paying to leave the ground idle.
Well, both of the above polices are insane. You seem to ignore that those
fields could produce other crops. These subsidies are bad and simply a
waste of hard earned tax dollars. There is talk
of the US now having to import wheat for the first time in modern history.
We really have to call things that are stupid , well...stupid..
>
> It is great to have an industry that can use a big range of crops
> when they are in surplus to make badly needed motor fuel and provide the
> farmers who had been going broke because of low prices due to
> over-production.
Not when it complete waste of energy and poor use resources. Doing so makes
everyone more poor. Burning this stuff in cars is causing food stuffs to
go up in price, and will cause children around the world to starve.
If trying to do something good here, then lets grow the food to help poor
people.
>
> Don't knock a good thing, if people would have been eating that
> corn, and there would have not been huge surpluses, it would never
> been used for fuel grade ethanol.
It is not a good thing, and using land in this fashion is stupid, and even a
drunken unemployed rodeo clown can figure this out. It is a absolute
astounding your standing here and promoting the waste of energy, and burring
of
food in cars when we have starving people around the world. I don't get
people like you at all....
> And people do not eat all that much field corn to begin with,
> it was fed to cattle and used as a source of starch and sugar, and
> any commercial use actually makes more available as cattle food at
> a lower price because the residue doesn't cost as much as the corn,
> and it can have other nutrients added to make a better animal feed.
Yes, milk, poultry, meat...dam near the whole food chain in the us has a
major
component of corn in it, and this greens and socialist government hack are
making a COMPLETE mess of this whole thing...
>
> Please don't let the reactionary articles distort the picture.
>
Distort the picture? You got to frikinen mentally ill to think that this
corn ethanol makes ANY sense at all....you can't make the cause for it at
all...not even one bit....
Super Turtle.
Ouroboros_Rex
Poor James - his being exposed in lie after lie after lie by me is finally
causing him to crack. lol
Whata Fool
>Whata Fool wrote:
>> "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do believe it was originally added to reduce pollution (real pollution,
>>> not CO2). Although, with the reduced mileage I wouldn't be surprised if
>>> it's a wash. The subsidies for the ethanol are lucrative.
>>
>>
>> E10 does not reduce mileage, he was reading an article about E85,
>> and using those numbers discussing E10.
>
>The energy content of ethanol is less than the energy content of gasoline.
>
>Long ago I drove through the northeast and tried ethanol. This was on my
>old carborated (1984?) Honda Civic and my gas mileage (figured every fillup)
>was indeed less than usual, although I don't recall by how much.
Do you remember if it was E10 or E85?
GT did not separate the two in his discussion.
>In the same vein, in CA they claimed that MTBE reduced mileage only by 2%,
>although somehow everyone in the real world was seeing a 20% reduction. This
>is for the ones who's fuel systems were not destroyed of course. A fate we
>may well see again if CA switches from MTBE to ethanol.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Rich
And you know what the chemicals are in the MTBE?
E85 will give better mileage than gasoline, but not with
the same motor, check what the compression ratio is on leaded gas
motors.
But don't worry about it there won't be much E85 now,
the price of feedstock is too high, and until the technology
and the yeasts are ready for cellulose, the difference in E10
will not even be noticed.
In the meantime, change the spark plugs every 10,000 or
so miles, keep the tires proprly inflated, drive 55 or less,
don't accelerate too fast, and try to play the lights so you
don't need to use the brakes as much.
Or better yet, take the bus, if you don't mind waiting
an hour or so.
Whata Fool
>"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote in message
>news:v9kh54pjsfk4ln75p...@4ax.com...
>
>>>If put in 10% ethanol into gasoline, you wind up getting 10%, or even less
>>>gas mileage!
>>
>> Wrong, it improves mileage, it provides the equivalent of octane
>> even more than 10 percent, and it helps a more complete burn.
>>
>
>No, that is not what *all* test's show at all right now. Even with e-10,
>most will show about a 3%-4% drop in mileage. It has less energy then
>gasoline, so adding this stuff to gas will **generally** reduce output and
>reduce mileage. And, as I pointed out, many are finding A WORSE mileage then
>a 4% drop.
The problem is most don't know how to check mileage accurately,
it takes a closed course with special fuel tanks.
If I find the official test results, I will post them.
>it is possible that cars could be better (or specific) tuned to take
>advantage of e-10, but that is not the case right now. And, that better
>turning could also be applied to using gas anyway.
I think some of the flexfuel cars will advance timing, but it may
require telling the computer it is ethanol, and maybe some drivers don't
know about that.
>> Look, the only reason corn has been used is because there was millions
>> of tons surplus every year, the economics will determine which sugar or
>> starch will be used.
>
>There not a surplus now, and the flooding in Iowa makes this situation even
>worse.
That will affect E85, but there is no reason it will affect E10.
>> Ethanol may have actually made farming a viable enterprise again,
>> without the government paying to leave the ground idle.
>
>Well, both of the above polices are insane. You seem to ignore that those
>fields could produce other crops. These subsidies are bad and simply a
>waste of hard earned tax dollars. There is talk
>of the US now having to import wheat for the first time in modern history.
>We really have to call things that are stupid , well...stupid..
You apparently don't know how much money was lost on growing corn,
most farmers don't buy corn for their farm, they grow it, that means the
price of their corn, and the supply for their animals stays the same.
>> It is great to have an industry that can use a big range of crops
>> when they are in surplus to make badly needed motor fuel and provide the
>> farmers who had been going broke because of low prices due to
>> over-production.
>
>Not when it complete waste of energy and poor use resources. Doing so makes
>everyone more poor. Burning this stuff in cars is causing food stuffs to
>go up in price, and will cause children around the world to starve.
>
>If trying to do something good here, then lets grow the food to help poor
>people.
Lets let the farmers decide what they want to grow, else they may
decide to grow nothing. Many can just go get a job and let the weeds
rejuvenate their soil.
>> Don't knock a good thing, if people would have been eating that
>> corn, and there would have not been huge surpluses, it would never
>> been used for fuel grade ethanol.
>
>It is not a good thing, and using land in this fashion is stupid, and even a
>drunken unemployed rodeo clown can figure this out. It is a absolute
>astounding your standing here and promoting the waste of energy, and burring
>of
>food in cars when we have starving people around the world. I don't get
>people like you at all....
You are obviously getting emotional over finding out people are
starving, but it is not due to a lack of food, it is due to the UN
falling down on the job, to militants preventing delivery, and even
governments that apparently don't care.
>> And people do not eat all that much field corn to begin with,
>> it was fed to cattle and used as a source of starch and sugar, and
>> any commercial use actually makes more available as cattle food at
>> a lower price because the residue doesn't cost as much as the corn,
>> and it can have other nutrients added to make a better animal feed.
>
>Yes, milk, poultry, meat...dam near the whole food chain in the us has a
>major
>component of corn in it, and this greens and socialist government hack are
>making a COMPLETE mess of this whole thing...
I don't see any problem here, stop reading so many news stories,
and go to the produce market where food can be bought for a song.
>> Please don't let the reactionary articles distort the picture.
>>
>
>Distort the picture? You got to frikinen mentally ill to think that this
>corn ethanol makes ANY sense at all....you can't make the cause for it at
>all...not even one bit....
>
>Super Turtle.
Are you sure the ethanol plants haven't cut back?
Ouroboros_Rex
I would expect a small reduction, based on the (real) numbers.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Whata Fool wrote:
>> "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I do believe it was originally added to reduce pollution (real
>>> pollution, not CO2). Although, with the reduced mileage I
>>> wouldn't be surprised if it's a wash. The subsidies for the ethanol
>>> are lucrative.
>>
>>
>> E10 does not reduce mileage, he was reading an article about
>> E85, and using those numbers discussing E10.
>
> The energy content of ethanol is less than the energy content of
> gasoline.
> Long ago I drove through the northeast and tried ethanol. This was on
> my old carborated (1984?) Honda Civic and my gas mileage (figured
> every fillup) was indeed less than usual, although I don't recall by
> how much.
> In the same vein, in CA they claimed that MTBE reduced mileage only
> by 2%, although somehow everyone in the real world was seeing a 20%
> reduction.
Except that they weren't.
This is for the ones who's fuel systems were not destroyed
> of course. A fate we may well see again if CA switches from MTBE to
> ethanol.
Over 95% of the gasoline sold in Chicago is E10. Every major US car
manufacturer covers it under their warranty.
Whata Fool
>Distort the picture? You got to frikinen mentally ill to think that this
>corn ethanol makes ANY sense at all....you can't make the cause for it at
>all...not even one bit....
Who put you up to this tirade, this guy;
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2008/06/218232.php
Any ethanol plant can start using sugar at any time, just by
changing the yeast a little, in fact a lot of the work associated
with corn preparation is eliminated with sugar, no more grinding or
cooking is needed.
Ethanol for fuel never was a government idea, it was a farm co-op
idea to get the storage elevators cleared out for a change.
Read about all the good aspects of ethanol and see why it is here
to stay, and quit blaming the liberals, they are not farmers, they are
freeloaders, they are not intelligent enough to think clearly, the small
percentage of grain used to make ethanol doesn't affect the corn ordinarily
going for direct consumption, and the by-product of ethanol is far more
animal feed at a lower price than before.
Look at this, the ethanol per acre is the big thing, maybe helping
farmers understand what crops to grow would help;
http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel_library/ethanol_motherearth/z/1Table3.gif
That table shows that corn is the least productive per acre for
and feedstock that gives more than 200 gallons per acre.
Talking down ethanol is not useful at all, if you don't want it
don't buy it, I don't use it because I can't get any, most gas stations
don't carry it, your tirade is a non issue.
http://journeytoforever.org/ethanol.html
If farmers switch to artichoke and sugar crops, the profits should
help pay back what they lost over the last 50 years because of low prices
and over production.
Ouroboros_Rex
> Rich <som...@someplace.not> wrote:
>
>> Whata Fool wrote:
>>> "Tom Gardner" <tom(nospam)@ohiobrush.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I do believe it was originally added to reduce pollution (real
>>>> pollution, not CO2). Although, with the reduced mileage I
>>>> wouldn't be surprised if it's a wash. The subsidies for the
>>>> ethanol are lucrative.
>>>
>>>
>>> E10 does not reduce mileage, he was reading an article about
>>> E85, and using those numbers discussing E10.
>>
>> The energy content of ethanol is less than the energy content of
>> gasoline.
>>
>> Long ago I drove through the northeast and tried ethanol. This was
>> on my old carborated (1984?) Honda Civic and my gas mileage (figured
>> every fillup) was indeed less than usual, although I don't recall by
>> how much.
>
>
> Do you remember if it was E10 or E85?
>
> GT did not separate the two in his discussion.
He never mentioned anything but 10% ethanol, I'd say that's pretty
separate. ;)
>
>> In the same vein, in CA they claimed that MTBE reduced mileage only
>> by 2%, although somehow everyone in the real world was seeing a 20%
>> reduction. This is for the ones who's fuel systems were not
>> destroyed of course. A fate we may well see again if CA switches
>> from MTBE to ethanol.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Rich
>
> And you know what the chemicals are in the MTBE?
>
> E85 will give better mileage than gasoline, but not with
> the same motor, check what the compression ratio is on leaded gas
> motors.
I did not know that!